Afghanistan: To Surge Or Not To Surge?

Incompetents are consistent with themselves. Case in point:

The US agrees: only a 'surge' can beat Taliban

American officials have backed the view of General Sir David Richards, the new head of the British Army, that a "surge" is needed in Afghanistan to beat the Taliban.

Patrick Moon, the United States' deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia, said that the extra troops were essential to carry out a security drive in the country.

Mr Moon, who met British officials on his way to Kabul, pointed out that General David McKiernan, the head of Nato forces in Afghanistan, had requested reinforcement. "The troops will have to be found. US is sending a marine battalion and an army combat brigade and we are asking our Nato allies to contribute as well."

That "decision" actually followed this previous "bold" declaration:

'We need 30,000 more soldiers to beat Taliban,' says general

A general who believes a "surge" of 30,000 more troops is needed in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban will be appointed as the new head of the British Army today, The Independent has learnt.

General Sir David Richards, who will take over from General Sir Richard Dannatt, is believed to favour sending up to 5,000 more British troops to Afghanistan on top of the 8,000 already in the country. The other 25,000 troops would be made up of US reinforcements and newly trained Afghan soldiers. General Richards also believes that a negotiated settlement may be necessary to end the conflict, but that any talks must take place with the Afghan government and Nato in a position of strength.

Never mind that others before him have concluded that regardless, continued warfare in the Afghanistan FUBAR would have to last at least another 30 years to eventually achieve victory - if it is ever achieved at all.

And never mind the current initiatives being undertaken to achieve piece, some which are actually showing progress.

And definitely never mind this clear-headed, sober assessment of whether a surge in Afghanistan will succeed or not, taking into acount the situation in Pakistan:

Nir Rosen imbedded with the Taliban for his latest report on Afghanistan, out now in Rolling Stone. His experiences included almost being executed by a fanatical Taliban local warlord, but he came away with the conclusion that adding more troops to Afghanistan won’t work, and that we should prepare an exit strategy.

Simply put, it is too late for Bush's "quiet surge" — or even for Barack Obama's plan for a more robust reinforcement — to work in Afghanistan. More soldiers on the ground will only lead to more contact with the enemy, and more air support for troops will only lead to more civilian casualties that will alienate even more Afghans. Sooner or later, the American government will be forced to the negotiating table, just as the Soviets were before them.

"The rise of the Taliban insurgency is not likely to be reversed," says Abdulkader Sinno, a Middle East scholar and the author of Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond. "It will only get stronger. Many local leaders who are sitting on the fence right now — or are even nominally allied with the government — are likely to shift their support to the Taliban in the coming years. What's more, the direct U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is now likely to spill over into Pakistan. It may be tempting to attack the safe havens of the Taliban and Al Qaeda across the border, but that will only produce a worst-case scenario for the United States. Attacks by the U.S. would attract the support of hundreds of millions of Muslims in South Asia. It would also break up Pakistan, leading to a civil war, the collapse of its military and the possible unleashing of its nuclear arsenal."

In the same speech in which he promised a surge, Bush vowed that he would never allow the Taliban to return to power in Afghanistan. But they have already returned, and only negotiation with them can bring any hope of stability.

John McCain's strategy - following the Bush administration in handing policymaking to General Petraeus - isn't going to work any better. Talking our way to an exit from the doomed adventure in Afghanistan really is the only way out of that grim trap.

And never you mind all other reality-based assessments offered in the last two months alone (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here or here).

No, no, no - never mind any of that logical, cold sober, "sustainable objectives", competent stuff.

Instead, listen to gung ho generals all-too-eager to prove their mettle who offer you a politically expedient solution which allows you to give the appearance that you are "decisive", "resolved", "determined", "tough" and "on top of things".

Ah, the hubris of incompetence ... at what additional cost, after seven disastrous years?